Canonical Literature Of Jainas

SR No.: 022774
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: H R Kapadia
Publisher: Hindi Granth Karyalay
Publication Year: 1941
Total Pages: 286
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 26 MB

Page 57

44 . THE CANONICAL LITERATURE OF THE JAINAS
[CHAP. Sthānakavāsins. It may be that they may have been led to the same conclusion on the following understanding:
Pindanijjutti seems to be alluded to in the following verse of the Nijjutti on Dasaveyāliya (p. 161"):"भावस्सुवगारित्ता एत्थं दव्वेसणाइ अहिगारो । तीइ पुण अत्थजुत्ती वत्तव्वा पिंडनिज्जुत्ति ॥ २३९॥"
So it may be inferred that Pindanijjutti is an off-shoot of the Dasaveyāliyanijjutti and hence, in a way, that of Dasaveyāliya as it after all supplements the information given in Pindesanā, its fifth ajjhayana. Similarly Ohanijjutti, too, is an off-shoot of Āvassayanijjutti (v. 665) and somehow that of Āvassaya. Consequently, if these off-shoots are not separately counted but are somehow looked upon as included in the works of which they are the off-shoots, the number of the 5 Mülasuttas comes to 3.
Dr. Charpentier, Prof. Winternitz and Dr. Guérinot add to this number Pindanijjutti, and thus they consider the number of Mulasuttas as four. There are persons who, instead of looking upon Pindanijjutti as the 4th Mülasutta, consider Ohanijjutti as the 4th. This will explain why I say that there is none who considers the number of Mülasuttas as 5. Nevertheless, apparently Prof. Schubring seems to be an exception to this rule; but I think he, too, is not keen on believing or maintaining that the traditional number of the Mülasuttas is anything else but three or four.
Just as there is a difference of opinion regarding the number of the Malasuttas, so is the case with the orders in which they are enumerated by different scholars. They are:
(1) Uttarajjhayaņa, Āvassaya and Dasaveyāliya. (2) These three works in this very order with Pindunijjutti
as the 4th.
While commenting upon this verse Haribhadra Sūri says on p. 1629 and p. 1620:
"सा च पृथकस्थापनतो मया व्याख्यातैवेति नेह व्याख्यायते." The editor of this work has written a foot-note on this as under:
"पिण्डनियुक्तः पृथकस्थापितत्वात् तत्र भगवाहस्वामिनाऽर्थयुक्तिर्व्याख्यातेति नात्राध्ययनार्थाधिकारे तदव्याख्यानम् । अन्यथा वाऽस्ति हरिभद्रसरिकृता पिण्डनियुक्तिवृत्तिरिति तामाश्रित्यापि स्यादिदं वचः ।"